Adding Insult to Injury

Mr. Trump considers redirecting funds committed to rebuilding Puerto Rico toward the building of the Wall. From WaPo:

Trump has urged the Army Corps to determine how fast contracts could be signed and whether construction could begin within 45 days…

The list includes dozens of flood control projects in areas affected by recent natural disasters, including the Texas coastline inundated by Hurricane Harvey and parts of Puerto Rico battered by Hurricane Maria. The military construction budget is also being looked at as a potential source for unspent funds, with billions more potentially available there.

It might be that Mr. Trump believes that only 60 odd people died as a result of Hurricane Maria, instead of the official estimate of nearly 3000, so perhaps he can be excused for sheer willful ignorance.

More likely, he just likes the idea of taking money from suffering brown people to build a wall to punish (even if ineffectively) brown people. For him, it’s win-win.

70 thoughts on “Adding Insult to Injury

  1. pgl

    “More likely, he just likes the idea of taking money from suffering brown people to build a wall to punish (even if ineffectively) brown people. For him, it’s win-win.”

    Well put. It is also seen as a win-win by his base. Make America White Again.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      Wow, all about racism, again? But anyway, I was glad to see that so many Democratic Party leaders were vacationing in Puerto Rico during the shutdown. Obviously, their only intent was to spread money into the impoverished island while they walked along the devastated beaches carefully avoiding the wreckage from the hurricanes. Many of the Democrats were going to see Hamilton because that was deemed a non-racist interpretation of history and then going to join cleanup crews in areas not yet recovered. Here they are, hard at work. https://twitter.com/DavidMcAlpine/status/1084156883714392067/photo/1

      Reply
      1. pgl

        In case people do not know who this David McAlpine is – his LinkedIn says he is a producer at Fox “News”. Bruce – his crack about Democrats vacationing in Puerto Rico is transparently dishonest and totally disgusting. Which of course is why you decided to post it here.

        Reply
          1. pgl

            100% of your sources of have been right wing crack pots. Which calls into question every single thing you write here. Not that I have seen a shred of honest and intelligent comments from you in the past. SOOOO – keep up the good work!

          2. Bruce Hall

            pgl, I could say something similar and just as inane about your ideological mentors, but none of that is relevant to a discussion about whether the U.S. should spend $94 billion of a $29 billion FEMA budget in Puerto Rico.

            Still, I understand your need to use epithets and smears rather than actual data.

  2. noneconomist

    Today’s (1/12) Sacramento Bee: “According to the office of U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, Democrat from Walnut Grove, seven flood control projects totaling $2.46 billion in California could be affected by Trump’s proposal.”
    Included: raising Folsom Dam by three feet (insuring more flood protection AND more water storage) upgrading levees in various neighborhoods on the Sacramento and American Rivers (including erosion protection) , et. al.
    (For non-Californians, the four county metro Sacramento region is more heavily populated–around 2.2 million–than about 15 states. Heavy flooding is not unusual nor unanticipated)

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Short changing FEMA will be a lot more damage than a few Latins at the border asking for water and medical care. But Trump is so afraid of Brown People he calls these immigrants an INVASION.

      Reply
    1. Rick Stryker

      Nonsense from Thomas Friedman. No one I know who voted for Trump believes that he was going to make Mexico pay for the wall nor do they expect him to do so. We were all in on the joke, which is that Trump’s statement was designed to be memorable and to signal that he was serious enough about border security to confront Mexico. Left wing journalists like Friedman think they can damage Trump by pointing out that Mexico won’t pay. They don’t understand that Trump’s supporters don’t care about that.

      Once again, Trump shows that he is smarter and knows more than his opponents.

      Reply
      1. noneconomist

        Sure. The crowds acting as ventriloquist dummies shouting “Mexico!” to ID wall payers were in on it too. Judging from your response, both you and Sammy may be looking for some inexpensive ocean front property in Death Valley.

        Reply
      2. pgl

        “We were all in on the joke”. Well put – but it is Trump that is the joke. If he were serious about border security, he would have accepted Schumer’s ideas. But no – his vanity has gotten the best of him so it is Wall, Wall, Wall.

        Reply
      3. baffling

        “No one I know who voted for Trump believes that he was going to make Mexico pay for the wall nor do they expect him to do so.”
        apparently rick stryker still fails to understand this is a lie to achieve ones goal, as trump clearly stated this was his position in the past. rick, supporting this type of behavior is why you (and donald trump) are viewed as lacking integrity. you cannot hold a conversation in a civil society when one of the parties never knows when the other side is saying the truth or a lie. i would think somebody who considers himself a “conservative” would certainly understand such a social construct. but keep digging your hole rick stryker.

        Reply
  3. Rick Stryker

    Baffled,

    When I pointed out in previous post that Trump was looking to divert military construction funds to build the wall, you claimed that I was being dishonest. But now Menzie cites a WaPo article on Trump looking at diverting military construction funds to build the wall.

    When are you going to apologize to me?

    Reply
      1. Rick Styker

        Menzie,

        I don’t believe I said that, but if I did, I apologize. I thought I said that Trump was the most honest politician that we have seen or are likely to see in our lifetimes. But it’s probably a stretch to say that Trump is the most honest politician ever.

        Reply
    1. noneconomist

      Apologies here too for the Rickster.
      He knew Trump was kidding when he said Trump –being a self-styled master builder–would construct a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. One made of concrete (modular panels) ideally about 35 feet high that could be built on the cheap. In areas where there were no roads or much infrastructure of any kind. One that Mexico (wink! wink!) would pay for. Everybody was in on the joke except for foolish liberals who–like the gullible chumps they are–were aghast at the (false!) nonsense.
      And Rick also knew Trump might divert funds for such unnecessary stuff as flood control projects already approved by Congress.
      Here we were witnessing genius by Trump followers like Rick , and we had no idea how clever they are.

      Reply
    2. baffling

      rick stryker, i argued you had not provided any evidence to support your position on january 6. the evidence you seem to be providing is coming from menzie on january 11. and why is this distinction important? because rick stryker has taken a position that he (and donald trump) are permitted to lie to achieve one’s goals. so when rick stryker presents an argument without evidence, am i to believe it is true or false? in rick’s view, it depends. i don’t hold those types of conversations. you see rick, there is a negative side to lacking integrity by promoting lies to achieve ones goals. so it is great that menzie provided evidence to support rick stryker’s argument. but as long at you are committed to the acceptable use of lies to achieve ones goals, i think your request for an apology is out of bounds rick. i would have no problem apologizing if your position had more integrity-but alas it does not.

      Reply
      1. Rick Stryker

        Baffled,

        Making an argument without evidence is not equivalent to lying.

        However, I did provide evidence. I linked to the letter from the two Democratic senators from over 6 months ago. And in any event, the bottom line–I WAS RIGHT.

        Still waiting for that apology.

        Reply
        1. baffling

          rick, i see you provided a link further down in the commentary. i stand corrected in this case.

          “Making an argument without evidence is not equivalent to lying.”
          in most cases that is true. but when the person making the argument also believes that lying is permissible to win an argument, it means the argument cannot be assumed to be truthful to begin with. that is what happens when you have a lack of integrity. most small children learn such things by first grade, for instance reading the little boy who cried wolf. rick stryker, you can learn this lesson by reading aesop’s fable here
          http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

          Reply
  4. Moses Herzog

    I kept wondering why keep the dialogue of the discussions between the two primate animals concealed?? And then it suddenly dawned on me. donald trump doesn’t want people to know the secret repellent he uses to keep bed bugs and lice off his Moscow hotel mattresses.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html

    I wonder what it is???
    https://youtu.be/fmXqR82EfcQ?t=4

    Reply
  5. Moses Herzog

    Republican Lindsey Graham, always trying to “protect”……. America?? Or always trying to protect someone else?? His golf buddy??
    https://twitter.com/politico/status/1019985922270605312

    Strange how Republicans didn’t mind donald trump handing out classified Israeli intelligence like peppermint candies at a very public presidential meeting in the Oval Office, but “casual” conversations with Putin is a real “guarded secret” for Lindsey Graham and the Republicans, isn’t it??
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/trump-russia-meeting-american-reporters-blocked.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-denies-trump-gave-classified-information-to-russian-officials-1494890345

    Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        No no no, pgl. Rick will assure us that he and all the true Trumpshits have been in on it that Trump is completely beholden financially to the Russians and does Putin’s bidding. But that is fine, becsause anybody wearing a MAGA hat knows Putin is a good guy whom our president should obey.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          When I lived in Dublin, Ireland – I knew some old bloke born in 1916 that loved Hitler. Why would some Irish bloke love Hitler? I guess it had to do with him growing up during the Irish Revolution and hating all things English. This bloke hated Jews even though he had never met one. I thought this was the oddest thing ever but along comes how the Trumpsters seems to think Putin is a good person. After all – Putin never liked Hillary Clinton.

          As long as this odd behavior is a conversation over a beer and nothing more, not the biggest deal. But when it dominates the White House, we are letting our nation being sold out. And Rick is fine with all of this.

          Reply
    1. pgl

      You might be confused:

      https://www.businessinsider.com/google-news-vs-apple-news-2018-7#but-from-a-content-standpoint-both-app-widgets-left-a-little-to-be-desired-2

      “At first glance, Apple News seemed to offer a better mix of stories from more diverse sources. But when you look a little closer, every single headline but one contains the word “Trump.” I don’t know if that’s more on Apple’s design or the reality of our current politics, but it was a bit much.”
      Got that? Diverse sources but there seems to be a focus on Trump. Which of course Trump craves. So your problem is what? Not enough coverage of Hillary’s emails?

      Reply
    2. noneconomist

      Only? First 10 today include two fromFox. One from Politico, one from npr, one fromBuzz Feed, and the usual mix. Maybe past time for your yearly visit to the ophthalmologist?

      Reply
  6. pgl

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wapo-trump-took-interpreters-notes-from-putin-meeting-told-her-not-to-talk-about-it

    “resident Donald Trump has taken steps to keep the details of his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin from reaching other members of his administration, the Washington Post reported Saturday, leaving holes in the U.S. government’s account of what happened during meetings between the two leaders at five locations over the past two years. Trump has even gone so far as to take his interpreter’s notes at the end of one meeting, the Post reported, citing current and former U.S. officials. That occurred after the President’s 2017 meeting in Hamburg with Putin, which the Post noted was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Trump also instructed the interpreter “not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials,” in the Post’s words.”

    Why the extreme secrecy? I can think of only one reason – Trump sold out the United States to enrich himself and help the leader of Russia. In my book – this is treason. But I can hear it now – treason is not COLLUSION.

    Reply
    1. ilsm

      pgl,

      Who is the ‘people’? The people you agree with?

      The army corps of engineers is a pork project’s spreading goody bag…….

      How far will TDS go once their pork is effected?

      Us in cow Hampshire do not care to raise the height of Folsom dam! No matter how it affects the wildly over populated, lacking water except when they get deluged sixth largest (if took out of the US when they secede) economy in the world.

      Why did you not stay in Eire?

      Reply
        1. noneconomist

          The same guy who ranted about “amorality” doesn’t care who may be harmed as a result of natural disasters. Looks like ilsm is all in on the right people getting hurt, especially those he considers not worthy.
          Looks like anarchism IS what it used to be. (Strange rambling though coming from a “retired DOD contractor”. Or maybe not)

          Reply
        2. ilsm

          pgl,

          Eire is another name for Ireland…… oh well.

          Don’t you think? You lived in Dublin you said.

          noneconomist

          Why do you think you can determiner my motives?

          Whayt I said was Ca is a hazard and why should NH people pay for Ca risky behavior?

          You rather judge than think.

          Reply
          1. baffling

            what is the risky behavior in Ca? when NH makes an emergency declaration after a blizzard, should other states provide support? why should somebody in ohio pay for NH risky behavior?

          2. noneconomist

            This I know, ilsm
            The feds collect about 37 times more revenue from Californians than from cow Hampshireans, about 20% more per capita. So, banish any fears of you and your neighbors being unfairly dinged for flood control in California. Three years ago data shows the feds collecting over $400 billion from California, meaning it’s quite unlikely the $1.7 billion allocated by Congress for flood control here will come from your pocket.
            In fact, if you compare revenue collected from the neighboring states of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (which, combined are only a bit less populated than California), you will notice that the feds collect far more from us crazy risk takers–and that we pay more per capita–than those three states combined which have suffered their own fair shares of natural disasters.
            And, while I will leave the debate over whether California receives its fair share of federal revenues in return to the more knowledgeable, I will say that living in the UNITED STATES, I have concern for the general welfare of all citizens and that–in the past few years–I have been a personal contributor–in taxes collected and in charitable contributions–to those affected in West Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, Texas, and–of course–California. Many of these, I’m sure, for multiple times.
            BTW, there are plenty of cowifornians who also benefit from–and contribute to– flood control projects, especially in the areas south of Sacramento where farming and ranching are widespread.

      1. noneconomist

        I see you’re having trouble with the Constitution, ilsm.
        See, those funds have already been allocated by the Congress (and approved by the President) for specific works in a specific FY budget. If you have no problem with the President deciding to use those funds for other purposes–without congressional approval–then your problem is really with constitutional government.
        With your concern, you should probably look into how your cow Hampshire reps (including senators) voted on such allocations and give them the verbal spanking you believe they deserve.
        While you may not care about flood control in California, the citizens here who send plenty of money TO Washington do. Getting back some of it to use on projects that may save lives and property during natural disasters seems only fitting.

        Reply
  7. Bruce Hall

    Approximately $29 billion was authorized for Hurricane Katrina recovery: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/700-million-katrina-relief-funds-missing-report-shows/story?id=18870482

    Puerto Rico wants $94 billion: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-13/puerto-rico-seeks-94-billion-in-u-s-aid-for-hurricane-recovery

    Current Disaster Relief Fund for 2019 has a balance of $29.6 billion with present obligations of $15.3 billion: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1544720616455-343224bc90c9476807dd3c826567510c/December2018DisasterReliefFundReport.pdf. Meanwhile, Puerto Rico wants three times the amount spent for Katrina. Much of this is to refashion the island infrastructure that the PR government left to rot for decades.

    Trump is asking for $5.7 billion for a wall to stem illegal entry into the U.S. One estimate is that the U.S., in total, spends $134.9 billion in support of illegal aliens while they contribute approximately $19 billion in taxes or $116 billion in net costs to the U.S. https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers. So, $116 billion minus $5.7 billion leave almost $105 billion for Puerto Rico. Okay, it really doesn’t because the illegal aliens are already here, but it could prevent that $116 billion from continuing to grow.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Ah Bruce – if you would bother to visit Puerto Rico, you might get why they are asking for more relief money. But NOOO – they cannot have it as Trump needs WALL. Why does he need WALL? He – like you – are afraid some Latin kid might walk up and ask for a bottle of water.

      Reply
      1. Bruce Hall

        pgl I have to agree with you that the FAIR numbers are probably wrong. They used an estimate of about 12 million illegal aliens for their calculations when a recent MIT/Yale study puts the number at closer to 22 million. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates

        As far as “hate group” and “racism” allegations go, I don’t have much faith in the SPLC to be more than a far left-wing propaganda and activist group. I’d rather deal in numbers. If you have better numbers, I’m all for seeing them.

        Over 20-years ago, the government published a study with lower numbers: https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221495.pdf. Given inflation and the enrichment of so many programs during the last 20 years, I’d at least double the cost estimates in that study and then double again for the significant underestimation of the number of illegal aliens. So, I could reasonably come up with a number about 1/2 of the FAIR estimate, but still very high.

        But as I wrote above, If you have better numbers, I’m all for seeing them.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “I have to agree with you that the FAIR numbers are probably wrong.”

          Then why did you use this pathetic source in the 1st place? Yes – they are racists. This is well known to anyone paying a lick of attention. Now maybe you did not know this but I have to question that too.

          Look – we know PeakTrader Googles until he finds some spin no matter how pathetic it is. If you are doing the same thing, a little advice. Check out your sources before you post. Otherwise – you will continue to embarrass your poor mother.

          Any more sources from left field like Vdare?

          Reply
        2. pgl

          Yale insights noted this:

          “There are key areas of agreement between this paper and the existing survey numbers. Both methods found that the greatest growth of the undocumented population happened in the 1990s and early 2000s. Both found that the population size has been relatively stable since 2008.”

          In a word – Trump is full of BS. But Bruce – Yale Insights no where endorsed the lie that offended me:

          “One estimate is that the U.S., in total, spends $134.9 billion in support of illegal aliens while they contribute approximately $19 billion in taxes or $116 billion in net costs to the U.S. ”

          Yea to miss the point entirely there dude. Now run along and write your next legal brief for FAIR.

          Reply
        1. pgl

          Are you defending FAIR now? Hey – defend dishonest racists all you wish. The rest of us will never trust a word you put here again. Like we ever did.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            pgl, I don’t have to defend FAIR; you have to demonstrate that their numbers are completely wrong. Simply referencing a left-wing organization that smears anyone who disagrees with them is not a rebuttal of the estimate.

        2. pgl

          A confidential letter in the midst of lawyers on both sides of a litigation taking shots at each other. This is your attack on SPLC? Lord – this is stupid even for you. And BTW – how on earth did you get a confidential letter? I smell a serious ethics violation if you are a lawyer. You need to be more careful here as leaking confidential letters might end your “professional” career. And for what – to defend a bunch of racist liars? OK!

          Reply
          1. Bruce Hall

            pgl Let me save you the time. You can just cut and paste this into all of you comments:
            Racist Racism Racist Racism Racist Racism Racist Racism Racist Racism Racist Racism Racist Racism Racist Racism

            Glad to be of help.

            Now, as to actual numbers, you might have noticed if you didn’t have your racism prism lenses on that I offered not only the FAIR estimates, but the GAO estimates from the 1990s. Both used illegal alien population estimates that were far less than the MIT-Yale study. I addressed that. You haven’t. The fact that the numbers may be “stable” doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. There are about 14 million people in the U.S. with cancer. If that number stays the same, should the disease be ignored? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/cancer-prevalence.html

            I’ll stay with the numbers (and sources) I’ve provided unless you have convincing evidence, which doesn’t include name calling, of different numbers.

            As to the letter marked “confidential”, that was in the public domain. It is an example of the tactic that the SPLC uses and which you seem to have adopted. You could have found it easily enough with the minimum of effort, just as you could have responded with your own estimates of the economic impact of illegal aliens in the U.S. But your obsession with the SPLC, its far-left activism, and the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist seems to override anything you might have to say.
            ___________

            With respect to Puerto Rico, you never addressed the data and comments I provided. Once again, you did the “look over there” tactic to not actually respond.

  8. pgl

    Bruce Hall wants “better numbers” than those racist lies from FAIR. I guess his next allegedly reliable source will be VDARE:

    https://vdare.com/articles?page=1

    Of course every one knows – or at least should know – that VDARE has been the leading organization in smearing immigrants for the last 20 years. But if FAIR is good enough for Bruce Hall, he will fit in quite well with the VDARE crowd.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      pgl Still avoiding the numbers, I see.

      We all understand the approach: I you can’t address the data, smear the source. By the way, you parsed what I said. The full comment was:
      I have to agree with you that the FAIR numbers are probably wrong. They used an estimate of about 12 million illegal aliens for their calculations when a recent MIT/Yale study puts the number at closer to 22 million. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates

      So the obvious point was that the FAIR numbers were based on an underestimated population resulting in estimates that were understated using FAIR’s methodology. You can disagree with the methodology and conclusions>/b>. I’m waiting to read your arguments, but I’ll ignore anything with “racism”, “racist”, “hate group”.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        I’m not ignoring the numbers but you are. FAIR posted some intellectual garbage to the effect that immigrants are taking more than they are contributing. All your huffing and puffing of late is not even remotely directed at this.

        Let me make this easy for you. I – like everyone else – will continue to ignore your overheated rants until your doctor writes us a note that you are back on your meds.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Hall

          I provided you two sources of possible costs associated with Illegal aliens. You’re response was not analysis of the numbers, but simply an attempt to smear the source without providing anything more than the standard “racists” or “right wingers” nonsense.

          Okay, we can play that game. The Hoover Institution at Stanford University (that scum, racist, bigoted, unqualified, private university) wrong this about illegal immigration and it doesn’t even have any numbers to challenge your mind or rhetoric. https://www.hoover.org/research/civic-cost-illegal-immigration

          Why a Stanford professor even went so far as to say that students don’t know what news is or is not fake. The racist! Next he’ll probably claim that some academics don’t know how to distinguish between the two. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503129818/study-finds-students-have-dismaying-inability-to-tell-fake-news-from-real

          So, the real question is: to which “higher authority” do you appeal because you have such an aversion to numbers?

          Reply
          1. pgl

            “I provided you two sources of possible costs associated with Illegal aliens. You’re response was not analysis of the numbers”.

            I do not analyze intellectual garbage especially this rant from Victor Hanson. Your choices of “information” is telling. Not studies but “possible” costs from people with a talent for misleading and racist rants. Do continue to dig that hole deeper as you will soon end up in China.

          2. pgl

            Bruce Hall cites something from Victor Hanson as if he is a Stanford professor. No he is not. His own bio puts it this way:

            ‘Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National Review’

            Oh yea – he also writes intellectual garbage for the Washington Times. Yea he is part of the Hoover Institute but that is not the same thing as being an economist teaching the students at Stanford. Stanford should sue Bruce for slander.

            Me? All I know is that Bruce Hall is too stupid to know when one of his “sources” is flat out lying. Hey Bruce – continue to dig your hole deeper.

      2. pgl

        “One estimate is that the U.S., in total, spends $134.9 billion in support of illegal aliens while they contribute approximately $19 billion in taxes or $116 billion in net costs to the U.S.”

        I call this $134.9 billion – $19 billion a lie. And you repeated the “net” $116 billion. So you repeated this lie. NONE – I repeat – none of the other stuff you put here in any way defended this lie.

        Get a grip man. You truly have gone Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

        Reply
  9. pgl

    Bruce Hall
    January 15, 2019 at 8:36 am
    pgl Let me save you the time.

    At which point – let me save everyone else’s time by noting Bruce has gone off the deep end. He never did address the lie from FAIR that I specifically objected to. Oh no – just more unrelated long winded rants. Which of course any sane person should just ignore as Bruce Hall has gone beyond pointless by now.

    Reply
  10. pgl

    Bruce Hall has gone insane telling us how many immigrants live here. Whether this is 10 million, 20 million, or 30 million – what’s the difference. Oh yea – PeakTrader freaks out whenever he sees a brown person and it seems Bruce does too.
    I never dispute we have more than a few million immigrants. I disputed they were a drain on society – which the lying and racist FAIR folks said and Bruce had to repeat. Maybe that has been lost given all of Bruce’s overheated rants with totally irrelevant information. One counter?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/undocumented-immigrants-contribute-over-11-billion-to-our-economy-each-year/

    Undocumented Immigrants Contribute Over $11 Billion to Our Economy Each Year
    The notion that they do nothing but drain public coffers is a myth.

    Read the entire discussion as it is pretty good. Of course Bruce Hall will continue to inflict this comment section with more stuff from sources like FAIR and VDARE. It’s what he do!

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      pgl, I’ve left some replies to this and other links about immigrants’ contributions. I agree that illegal aliens do pay some taxes and, in fact, FAIR’s estimate was $19 billion, not $11 billion. However, you have assiduously avoided any focus on the cost side of the equation, as if your ideology won’t allow you to accept the real costs associated with supporting unskilled, under/uneducated illegal immigrants. My comments also spoke to the difference between the benefits this country receives from legal versus illegal immigrants.

      Hopefully, those replies will be allowed to appear.

      I’m not sure where Steven Kopits is since he has not chimed in, but he recently finished a study that shows illegal immigration is now at its highest level in a decade.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        The “possible” cost numbers as you put it are not evidence. They are flat out lies and you know it. Why else would you cite people like FAIR and a contributor to the National Review? You are wasting everyone’s time here and proving my point – you are nothing more than a Trump troll.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Hall

          pgl, I think that any analysis of cost-benefits is going to have some estimates as part of it since, obviously, there are agendas on both sides of the debate that bias what is considered “lies” and what is considered “reasonable”. Your agenda is that illegal immigration is one-sidedly beneficial because some illegal immigrants pay taxes (which both the FAIR and GAO papers agree on); however your agenda prohibits you from seeing the obvious cost side as well.

          Now your ad hominem attack on me is neither rational nor convincing to anyone who doesn’t have blinders on. You can debate the numbers; I’ve provided a pretty good range. But you can’t rationally or convincingly debate that there are no real costs that can more than offset the tax revenues collected from this demographic without a rational and convincing analysis that considers costs as well as revenues. Pointing out articles in the Atlantic is less convincing to me than those I’ve provided to you. I do believe the country benefits from most legal immigrants because they go through a pretty rigorous process, especially if they wish to become citizens. One of the societal costs of illegal immigration is the undermining of the legal system and the right of this country to set requirements for entry, residency, and citizenship. I know one-worlders like to think that is a quaint and anachronistic notion, but one-worlders are in a very distinct minority.

          If you consider my responses and sources “trolling”, I consider your off-handed dismissal and personal attacks irrelevant and meritless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
          ___________

          Now about Puerto Rico’s wish for $94 billion is nearly equal to FEMA’s 2018 total outstanding accumulated catastrophic event obligations ($97.5 billion). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FEMA%20-%20Disaster%20Relief%20Fund%20-%20FY%202019%20Funding%20Requirements.pdf.

          Okay, tell the rest of the country that Puerto Rico needs all of the money.

          Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      pgl Congratulations. You found a source with numbers. Now the only issue is that once again you parsed the information. The article is about “immigrants” not “illegal aliens (or migrants or immigrants as you prefer). The U.S. allows about 1 million legal immigrants annually. A very large number of those come with money and skills that enhance our economy as opposed to the preponderance of illegal immigrants. They go through the legal process and are not a disruptive force for the most part. Your argument is that crab apples are delicious because Gala apples are.

      I noted from your source that “An analysis based on the U.S. Census and other data estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $11.7 billion in state and local taxes.” That’s not inconsistent with the FAIR analysis (a little understated perhaps).

      Reply
      1. pgl

        Illegal aliens? Oh immigrants who have not filed out all the paper work. Your language here is racist. As are 100% of your “sources” Eh Bruce – we’re done here as your rants have gone from dishonest to just plain boring.

        Reply
  11. pgl

    Bruce Hall’s latest authority on immigration is Victor Davis Hanson who has certainly written a lot of intellectual garbage on this topic as well as how there is allegedly no racism left in the U.S. I know – Bruce has some weird authorities.

    Ta-Nehisi Coates has commented on some of Hanson’s views:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/its-the-racism-stupid/278026/

    Something tells me Bruce will not be offended by Hanson’s intellectual garbage but only by Coates title:

    “It’s the Racism Stupid”

    Guess what – Hanson writes for really stupid racists. No wonder Bruce cites Hanson as some alleged authority.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall

      pgl, when you fail at intellectual debate and analysis, always resort to ad hominem attacks.

      I’ll always consider rational disagreements; I’ll simply ignore ad hominem attacks as the paltry effort of a weak mind. So, when all else fails, accuse those who disagree of being some sort of vile person. But I’ll give you this: you’re pretty good at Saul Alinsky’s rule 5.

      As for Coates’ article, he objects to some particularly sound advice that Davis’ father gave based on personal experience. If you read the whole quote, you’d have to be racist to say that it was inappropriate advice for Davis and his father while appropriate advice for a black person in similar circumstances. Davis’ father and Davis were giving practical advice about encounters with groups of young, black males in certain urban settings who, if you have ever read FBI statistics, have a rate of violence far above those of all other ethnic and gender groups. Coates, and apparently you, take offense at using statistics to form advice.
      ___________

      We’ve strayed far from the point that Puerto Rico wants $94 billion from FEMA for reconstruction out of FEMA’s $29 billion budget: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1544720616455-343224bc90c9476807dd3c826567510c/December2018DisasterReliefFundReport.pdf

      …and my point that the cost of supporting illegal aliens, not legal immigrants far exceeds that of Trump’s proposed wall and any offsetting contribution in the form of taxes

      “Over 20-years ago, the government published a study with lower numbers: https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221495.pdf. Given inflation and the enrichment of so many programs during the last 20 years, I’d at least double the cost estimates in that study and then double again for the significant underestimation of the number of illegal aliens. So, I could reasonably come up with a number about 1/2 of the FAIR estimate, but still very high.”

      … which “offends” you.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.